Full evacuation in supported living property

[Suttonfire]

Hi All,

I have come across a building which is a converted church and now provides supported living for young persons (no mobility issues etc). There are no common facilities and the conversion is to a standard which means the compartmentation is now comparable to that of a purpose built block of flats.

However, there is a full fire alarm system and a single stage evacuation policy in place for the whole building.

Why would this be considered appropriate for this building whilst, stay put would be more appropriate for a purpose built block of flats? I guess you could also apply the same logic to a hotel with a high standard of compartmentation. Why would full evacuation be preferable (as seems to almost always be the case) to stay put, when in several cases the compartmentation is to at least the same standard as a purpose built block which operates stay put?

[nearlythere]

Is it possibly that BC in their wisdom dont see it as purpose built but a conversion job despite the level of compartmentation. Maybe the developer didnt consider this would be an issue? Maybe the designer didnt know when to stop with the fire safety measures? Maybe BC dont have an over provision policy?

[Owain]

Why would full evacuation be preferable (as seems to almost always be the case) to stay put

With full evacuation you can carry out a roll call away from the building and establish safely that no one has been left in the building.

It's also easier for people to understand what they should do in a fire.

[William 29]

Because fire alarm systems are installed without any thought process or risk based approach sometimes, particularly in conversions. The same can be said when L1 systems are installed in small offices when a manual system would be fine for life safety purposes.

[Suttonfire]

Just had a look at this property. It has good compartmentation throughout, including self closing FD30s doors to flats, subdividing doors along corridors and a protected stairwell etc.

There are no staff on site, and the property is used to temporarily house young homeless people. There is a full Grade A LD2 system in place, as well as local detectors in each flat.

There are regular false alarms due to call points in the common areas being maliciously activated (which the Fire Authority have raised concerns about), and regular acts of vandalism in the common areas

Its a difficult one in terms of the appropriateness of a communal alarm. Current guidance sets out that a communal alarm in a property with this type of compartmentation should be avoided (particularly where there are no staff based on site to silence and reset the alarm each time it is falsely activated). However, it is also evident that the common areas will not always be 'fire sterile' due to the behaviour of the residents.

The alarm system is usually ignored throughout due to the regularity of false activations. I believe the decision to be made is whether to remove the manual call points and retain automatic detection only (whilst re educating the residents), or to remove the communal system all together. I would be interested to hear the views of others who have faced a similar scenario.